Sunday, December 30, 2007

Pattern matching is an extremely pleasant and powerful way to handle tree-like structures, such as ASTs. Unsurprisingly, it's a feature found in most ML-inspired languages, which excel at compilation-related tasks. There is a pattern matching extension for metalua, which I use extensively, and which is still largely undocumented. This post is intended to temporarily close this gap.

Prerequisites

I suppose that people are comfortable with AST representation of code, as described in the user's manual. Some mastering of Lua and Metalua's basic principles is also probably necessary. Finally, having something you want to do that is non-trivial and AST related will obviously make the whole thing more appealing.

Purpose

When manipulating trees, you want to check whether they have a certain structure (e.g. a `Local{ } node with as first child a list of variables whose tags are `Id{ }); when you've found a data that matches a certain pattern, you want to name the interesting sub-parts of it, so that you can manipulate them easily; finally, most of the time, you have a series of different possible patterns, and you want to apply the one that matches a given data. These are the needs addressed by pattern matching: it lets you give a list of (pattern -> code_to_execute_if_match) associations, selects the first matching pattern, and executes the corresponding code. Patterns both describe the expected structures and bind local variables to interesting parts of the data. Those variables' scope is obviously the code to execute upon matching success.

match statement

Actually, the first vertical bar after the "with" is optional; moreover, a pattern can actually be a list of patterns, separated by bars. In this case, it's enough for one of them to match, to get the block to be executed:

The first matching pattern is selected, the corresponding block is executed, and all other patterns and blocks are ignored. If no matchin pattern is found, an error "mismatch is raised (however, we'll see it's easy to add a catch-all pattern at the end of the match, when we want it to be failproof).

Patterns

Litterals

Syntactically, a pattern is mostly identical to the values it matches: numbers, booleans and strings, when used as patterns, match identical values.

match x with
| 1 -> print 'x is one'
| 2 -> print 'x is two'
end

Tables

Tables as patterns match tables with the same number of array-part elements, if each pattern field matches the corresponding value field. For instance, {1, 2, 3} as a pattern matches {1, 2, 3} as a value. Pattern {1, 2, 3} matches value {1, 2, 3, foo=4}, but pattern {1, 2, 3, foo=4} doesn't match value {1, 2, 3}: there can be extra hash-part fields in the value, not in the pattern. Notice that field 'tag' is a regular hash-part field, therefore {1, 2, 3} matches `Foo{1, 2, 3} (but not the other way around). Of course, table patterns can be nested. The table keys must currently be integers or strings. It's not difficult to add more, but the need hasn't yet emerged.
If you want to match tables of arbitrary array-part size, you just have to add a "..." as the pattern's final element. For instance, pattern {1, 2, ...} will match all table with at least two array-part elements, and whose two first elements are 1 and 2.

Identifiers

The other fundamental kind of patterns are identifiers: they match everything, and bind whatever they match to themselves. For instance, pattern {1, 2, x} will match value {1, 2, 3}, and in the corresponding block, local variable x will be set to 3. By mixing tables and identifiers, we can already do interesting things, such as getting the identifiers list out of a local statement, as mentionned above:

When a variable appears several times in a single pattern, all the elements they match must be equal, in the sense of the "==" operator. Fore instance, pattern { x, x } will match value { 1, 1 }, but not { 1, 2 }. Both values would be matched by pattern { x, y }, though.
A special identifier is "_", which doesn't bind its content. Even if it appears more than once in the pattern, metched value parts aren't required to be equal. The pattern "_" is therefore the simplest catch-all one.

Guards

Some tests can't be performed by pattern matching. For these cases, the pattern can be followed by an "if" keyword, followed by a condition.

match x with
| n if n%2 == 0 -> print 'odd'
| _ -> print 'even'
end

Notice that the identifiers bound by the pattern are available in the guard condition. Moreover, the guard can apply to several patterns:

Multi-match

If you want to match several values, let's say 'a' and 'b', there's an easy way:

match {a,b} with
| {pattern_for_a, pattern_for_b} -> block
...
end

However, it introduces quite a lot of useless tables and checks. Since this kind of multiple matches are fairly common, they are supported natively:

match a, b with
| pattern_for_a, pattern_for_b -> block
...
end

This will save some useless tests and computation, and the compiler will complain if the number of patterns doesn't match the number of values.

Examples

There are quite a lot of samples using match in the metalua distribution, and more will come in the next one. Dig in the samples for fairly simple usages, or in the standard libs for more advanced ones.

Implementation hints

The implementation is fairly commented, and can be found in lib/ext-syntax/match.lua. It isn't completely up-to-date with this post (mismatches don't cause arrors, and multi-matches aren't handled IIRC), e-mail me if you can't wait for v0.4 to get the latest version (which is 300 lines long).
Finally, there's a tutorial online which explains how to implement a (slightly simplified) version of the match extension from scratch in the manual (corresponding sources available as sample).
And since it's usually presented as a terrible challenge to integrate a macro system with a syntax-enabled language, I'm just going to quote the part of the code that deals with syntax. Granted, it requires a bit of knowledge, but someone who couldn't master that kind of API should definitely not be allowed to write macros:

From there, the *only* thing you have to do is write the function match_builder() :P
Macro writing is an essentially complex problem, which cannot be significantly reduced by today's programming languages. Those who can deal with that essential complexity can also deal with a bit of syntax and knowledge of AST; and if they do their job correctly, it's simpler for *everyone* to reuse the fruit of their precious work.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

When you write advanced macros, or when you're analyzing some code to check for some property, you often need to design a function that walks through an arbitrary piece of code, and does complex stuff on it. Such a function is called a code walker. A typical example of a code walker is CPS transformation (a way to reorganize the code so that it supports continuations). On Lisp contains a good description of such a CPS transformer.
Anyway, code walkers are tricky to write, involve a lot of boilerplate code, and are generally brittle. To make things a bit easier, Metalua comes with a walk library, which intends to accelerate code walker implementation. Since code walking is intrinsically tricky, the lib won't magically make it trivial, but at least it will save you some time and code, when compared to writing all walkers from scratch.

Principles

Code walking is about traversing a tree, first from root to leaves, then from leaves back to the root. This tree is not uniform: some nodes are expressions, some others statements, some others blocks; and each of these node kinds is subdivided in several sub-cases (addition, numeric for loop...). The basic code walker just goes from root to leaves and back to root without doing anything. On the simplest form of tree possible, the 'up' and 'down' passages are materialized below by the eponymous function calls in the recursive function below:

function traverse(node)
down(node)
for c in children(node) do
traverse(node)
end
up(node)
end

'walk' generates fancy versions of the simple traversal algorithm above, specialized for AST trees. Of course, it lets you define your own up() and down() functions. In addition, it gives you some more control:

Your up() and down() functions are different for each kind of node (expr/stat/block); you can use a predicate to indicate whether these functions should be called or not, typically based on the tags you're interested in.

When going down the tree, you can decide not to walk sub-nodes, by making your down() function return 'break'. For instance, you might decide that you're not interested to parse the body of functions. Then you put in your down() function something like match x with `Function{ params, body } -> return 'break' end

API

Now, about how to implement that in Metalua with walk.lua. walk contains 3 interesting functions: walk.expr(cfg), walk.stat(cfg) and walk.block(cfg), which respectively generate a walker for the AST of an expression, a statement and a block of statements. cfg is a table which describes the exact behavior of that walker.
cfg is cut in 3 sections expr, stat and block, each describing how to parse the nodes of the corresponding kinds. Notice that an expr node can have block subnodes, stat nodes can have expr subnodes etc. Each of these 3 sections can contain any of the following fields:

down, the function to be applied on every node of this kind when going down;

up, the function to be applied on every node of this kind when going back up;

pred, the predicate which indicates whether up and down should be called. It can be:

a string: in this case the predicate is considered true if the node's tag is equal to that string;

a list of strings: in this case the predicate is considered true if the node's tag is one of the list's strings;

a function: in that case the function is the predicate, i.e. it takes the node as a parameter, and the returned result indicate whether the up/down function should be run;

a boolean: if true, the predicate is always true; if false, always false;

nothing: in that case, the predicate is considered true and the up/down function is run.

Moreover, the down() functions might return the string 'break'. In that case, it prevents the walking to go through the node's subnodes, and the node's up() function won't be called either. This allows to shortcut whole subtrees.
A couple of details:

In nodes that create new local variables, those new variables ( `Local{ X, _ }, `Localrec{ X, _ }, `Fornum{ X, ... }, `Forin{ X, ... } and `Function{ X, ... }), the `Id sub-nodes that declare those variables aren't treated as expressions. For instance, in "local x=y"`Local{ {`Id 'x'}, {`Id 'y'} }, y is walked in as an expression, but not x. If you want to do something with those left-hand-side identifiers, you have to get them from their parent node.

Unkown nodes will cause a warning, and their sub-nodes won't be traversed by default (we can't know hoe to do this), but they won't crash the walker. This allows to walk through code with phony nodes, typically to turn them into real AST.

When a function call or a method invocation is used as a statement, it won't be traversed as an expression (although its subparts will): this allows to apply some functions only on statement calls.

First example

A bit of practice now. Let's build the simplest walker possible, that does nothing:

cfg = { }
walker = walk.block(cfg)

Now, let's say we want to catch and remove all statement calls to function assert(). This can be done by removing its tag and content: an empty list is simply ignored in an AST. So we're only interested by `Call node, and within these nodes, we want the function to be `Id 'assert'. All this is only relevant to stat nodes:

Notice that although sometimes handy, pred is not strictly necessary: the filtering could be done inside up() and down() functions. We'll now remove assert() calls in non-statement; these will simply be replaced by nil:

Here's a remark for functional programmers: this API is very imperative; you might cringe at seeing the `Call nodes transformed in-place. Well, I tend to agree but it's generally counter-productive to work against the grain of the wood: Lua is imperative at heart, and my attempts at doing this functionally sucked more than approaches that embraced imperativeness. Feel free to find and publish a better approach :) Anyway, this idea of overriding the content of an AST node with another is pretty handy, and there's a table.override function in the standard lib which does just that, so the code above should be written:

Cuts

By making down() return 'break', you can prevent the traversal to go further down. This might be either because you're not interested by the subtrees, or because you want to traverse them in a special way. In that later case, just do the traversal by yourself in the down() function, and cut the walking by returning 'break', so that nodes aren't re-traversed by the default walking algorithm. We'll see that in the next, more complex example.

Advenced example: free variables listing

In this example, we'll progressively build a walker that gathers all global variables used in a given block AST. This involves keeping, at all times, a set of the identifiers currently bound by a "local" declaration, by function parameters, as for loop variables etc. Then, every time an identifier is found in the AST, its presence is checked in the current set of bound variables. If it isn't in it, then it's a free (global) identifier.
The first thing we'll need is a scope handling system: something that keeps track of what identifiers are currently in scope. It must also allow to save the current scope (e.g. before we enter a new block) and restore it afterwards (e.g. after we leave the block). This is quite straightforward and unrelated to code walking; here is the code:

Now let's start designing the walker. We'll keep a scope object up to date, as well as a set of found free identifiers, gathered every time we find an `Id{ } node. To slightly simplify matter, we'll consider that the AST represent a block.

Since we don't ever add any identifier to the scope, this will just list all the identifiers used in the AST, bound or not. Now let's start doing more interesting things:

We'll save the scope's state before entering a new block, and restore it when we leave it. That will be done by providing functions cfl.block.down() and cfg.block.up(). Saving and restoration will be performed by methods :push() and :pop().

Whenever we find a 'local' declaration, we'll add the list of identifiers to the current scope, so that they won't be gathered when parsing the `Id expression nodes. Notice that the identifiers declared by the 'local' statement only start being valid after the statement, so we'll add them in the cfg.stat.up() function rather than cfg.stat.down()

This starts to be useful. We can also easily add the case for `Localrec{ } nodes (the ones generated by "local function foo() ... end"), where the variable is bound *in* the `Localrec statement, not after; we do the same as for `Local, but we do it in the down() function rather than in the up() one.
We'll also take care of `Function, `Forin and `Fornum nodes, which introduce new bound identifiers as function parameters or loop variables. This is quite straightforward; the only thing to take care of is to save the scope before entering the function/loop body (in down()), and restore it when leaving (in up()). The code becomes:

This is almost correct now. There's one last tricky point of Lua's semantics that we need to address: in "repeat foo until bar" loops, "bar" is included in "foo"'s scope. For instance, if we write "repeat local x=foo() until x>3", the "x" in the condition is the local variable "x" declared inside the body. This violates our way of handling block scopes: the scope must be kept alive after the block is finished. We'll fix this by providing a custom walking for the block inside `Repeat, and preventing the normal walking to happen by returning 'break':

That's it, we've now got a full free variables lister, and have demonstrated all the APIs offered by 'walk'. Notice however that the library isn't mature yet, and its interface might change before metalua loses its alpha label.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

I've written some time ago that Dylan felt deeply wrong to me, although I had a hard time explaining exactly why:

Finally, in the algol+macro category, the case of Dylan has to be mentioned. I have a bad feeling about this language, but I can't spot why exactly. That would be worth a separate post.

I've recently read someone make the case much better than I could, on the LL1 discussion list: Drew Withehouse on Dylan.

To that, I'd just add a lesser peeve: Dylan macros are supposed to be programmed in a very declarative subset of Dylan, so the language and the metalanguage aren't quite the same *in practice*. This feels philosophically wrong to me, although I'm not sure about its factual consequences.

Besides, I'm happy to notice that metalua fits the description of the ultimate language made in this post: double syntax approach, no mandatory fancy IDE, REPL, powerful yet unobtrusive module system... The main part still missing is standard libs in the distro. The next versions are evolving in that direction, and I'm eagerly waiting for luarocks to mature!